The effect of cost surface parameterization on landscape resistance estimates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cost or resistance surface is a representation of a landscape's permeability to animal movement or gene flow and is a tool for measuring functional connectivity in landscape ecology and genetics studies. Parameterizing cost surfaces by assigning weights to different landscape elements has been challenging however, because true costs are rarely known; thus, expert opinion is often used to derive relative weights. Assigning weights would be made easier if the sensitivity of different landscape resistance estimates to relative costs was known. We carried out a sensitivity analysis of three methods to parameterize a cost surface and two models of landscape permeability: least cost path and effective resistance. We found two qualitatively different responses to varying cost weights: linear and asymptotic changes. The most sensitive models (i.e. those leading to linear change) were accumulated least cost and effective resistance estimates on a surface coded as resistance (i.e. where high-quality elements were held constant at a low-value, and low-quality elements were varied at higher values). All other cost surface scenarios led to asymptotic change. Developing a cost surface that produces a linear response of landscape resistance estimates to cost weight variation will improve the accuracy of functional connectivity estimates, especially when cost weights are selected through statistical model fitting procedures. On the other hand, for studies where cost weights are unknown and model selection is not being used, methods where resistance estimates vary asymptotically with cost weights may be more appropriate, because of their relative insensitivity to parameterization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.282 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".